former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of

fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

not Burger-
"Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia. (The amendment provides, somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously, that “a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican, said that the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Yet just seventeen years later, in Heller, five justices proclaimed that the Framers had intended to protect an individual right to bear arms."

5. I am more than willing to give them the right to bear arms.........

as long as they go back to the arms that were around during the time of the founding of our country. Not that people can't be killed by them but we would not be seeing mass murders perpetrated by individuals. If these nuts want to drag around a musket or put a flintlock pistol in their waistband I say have at it. It would take 20+ armed men with those ancient weapons to do the damage done by one lone nutcase.

28. If you answer No then consistent logic is your enemy.

But you know that. I don't know how many people the printing press has killed this year. I suspect it is far lower than the number killed by drunk drivers. So by that logic we should ban alcohol. Right?

36. This is a discussion board.

Just saying something does not impress anybody unless you have an empty head. Most people try and make an argument for their position. But you don't. You just state something and expect that people will believe it. Now you can go back to juvenile insults in 3..2..1..

109. Support for a RWer on DU.

The most amazing things gets posted here. Since Burger was a genius I suppose you support all of his decisions. Or is it just a quote picked out here and there. Roberts is Chief Justice now. Do you support all of his opinions?

125. LOL. No. The second amendment grants NO authority what so ever.

Well, unless you think this doesn't really mean what it says:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

124. Is it inconsistent, though?

People could speak 300 years ago, just as they do now. They could express themselves, just as they do now. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to a network TV program, nor the right to the internet.

The difference is that expression isn't a thing, like a weapon is. There's the false equivilancy.

131. Not sure I follow.

Are you saying the 1st would not apply to tv or the internet? The poster I originally replied said the 2nd only applied to the technology of weapons in the 1700s. Arms are specifically mentioned in the 2nd just as the press is specifically mentioned in the 1st. If the founders only wanted the amendments to apply to what was around and available at the time then the same would apply to all amendments. But as I have repeatedly said this is a discussion which only would take place on the internet. Nobody serious in the debate holds the view the 2nd just applies to 1700s weapons. Please find any elected liberal/progressive that holds that view.

140. My point was

that comparing the 1st and 2nd is apples-to-oranges. The act of expression and what is protected hasn't fundamentally changed in centuries, while firearms, being a physical item/thing (or, rather, a set of things), is dramatically different now than it was.

148. Fine.

If you are going to persist in that argument please find either an elected progressive/liberal who holds that view or a Constitutional law expert, liberal or otherwise, who holds it. Don't you find it strange the only place you can find it is on an internet discussion board by anonymous posters?

154. Goal post moving

160. It likely is

However neither things are true of me or my post. You obviously don't know much about me if you think i am anti-gun-control. My statement on the difference between the 1st and 2nd is a case *for* being able to restrict classes of weapons.

Sigh.

There is no reason a private citizen needs semi-automatic weapons for defense. Revolvers, bolt-action longarms, and pump/lever shotguns are the most needed. Semi-automatics for competetive shooting can can kept securely at ranges.

41. Never that limited?

Have you read the posts I responded to? They are trying to suggest the 2nd is limited to the technology of the weapons available at the time of the writing of the 2nd. If that nonsense is true then the 1st is also limited to the technology of the press of that time. It is all nonsense and something you only would see on a internet board -- not in any serious discussion.

58. A third post with sentence framents.

75. Well good for Lawrence Tribe. We could get into a quote war but

I'm not going to. Let's just say we are even in that respect. Or do you want me to see your law professor and raise you a chief justice?

I did read the posts you responded to, none made the stretch yours did. What does a printing press have to do with free speech and the press? No one is arguing about how guns are manufactured, we are arguing about the type of guns and how they are used. Why are you bringing up how newspapers and books are made?

What about the right to peacefully assemble in a church, a theater, a school, or a street corner, without fear of being shot? Or do you agree with LaPierre that we should arm ourselves?

Why don't you let us petition the government about our grievances and let the majority decide?

107. This was the quote I replied to:

#5 I am more than willing to give them the right to bear arms.........as long as they go back to the arms that were around during the time of the founding of our country. Not that people can't be killed by them but we would not be seeing mass murders perpetrated by individuals. If these nuts want to drag around a musket or put a flintlock pistol in their waistband I say have at it.

If you think the 2nd A only applies to the weapon technology of the time then that applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. Do you agree with that post or not?

I am not aware I am stopping anyone from "petition the government about our grievances and let the majority decide". The majority do not want to ban weapons so let's have a vote if that is what you wish.

61. So you are equating the right to call someone an asshole

The Constitution was written as an adjustable document. The writers knew shit was going to come up that they couldn't even imagine so they made sure we could fix it if needed.

I don't agree with the idea that only 18th century weapons should be allowed but the 2nd amendment has room to adjust for a rule that was written when it took forever to load a single shot into a weapon.

My argument is always the same. Do you believe that I should be allowed to own a Thermonuclear device? If you do you are a lunatic. If you don't then you and I agree that there needs to be some form of arms control. The debate should be on where the line is drawn, not whether or not there needs to be a line.

187. I am not a lunatic.

At least I have not been certified as such so far. So no I don't favor people having nuclear weapons but I don't think that has been much of an issue. Your "asshole and shooting someone in the face" is a strawman. So you knocked it down as anyone could. I am a civil rights person and one of those rights is in the 2nd. It is part of the Bill of Rights. We currently have 20,000 federal and state gun laws. So far I have not see any new law proposals which would have affected Sandy Hook.

In most places in the United States you can not protest without a permit (Right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, 1st Amendment infringement, how can this stand!?! )

You can not legally practice every aspect of Sharīʿah law. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can not legally practice many of the 'laws' in the old testament that both Christians and Jews have in their Bibles, by such as stoning your children or killing your wife. Women being forced to marry their rapists, et al. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can't have more then one wife, even if your Religion demands you too. ( Prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

The press isn't allowed sometimes into Disaster zones, is this fair? ( A violation to the 1st Amendment to infringe on the Freedom of the press)

The Press isn't allowed to post pictures of murdered people at a crime scene, or war ( A violation to the 1st Amendment to infringe on the Freedom of the press)

It all depends on how one interprets the law. Nothing in the Constitution is black and white, It's mostly gray, so why not the 2ed?

Do you consider these Reasonable restrictions? Or Ignorant infringements by a overly nanny state Government on rights by those who wish to partake in some of the above list? Some people (Not saying you personally, but many rabid supporters) view the Second Amendment like a fanatical religion, Why should the fanatics get to dictate policy for the rest of us, with ZERO sane legislation that's better for the Three Hundred million people who live here? Serious question.

Having said that, I support the people to own guns, I just think they should be regulated more then Sudafed or Driving.

98. LOL! No problem I have been enjoying the discussion.

The guy with the printing press love affair did not get the gist of what I was trying to say. As a former Marine and a combat veteran with a wide variety of guns, I only have one that could be considered an assault weapon. It is an old (collectible) Winchester M1 carbine from WW2 passed down to me by my grandfather. All my other guns are for hunting and target practice. They range from .22 LR to .308 and from 410 to 12 gauge in shotguns. Which, being from Maine is a common thing to have. I just don't like seeing some idiot walking around with a loaded Bushmaster strapped to their back, it makes me uncomfortable as to their intentions and need of doing so. There was just the other day an incident in Portland Maine where some gun nut was walking around on a hiking trail with an AR15 strapped to his back. These nuts are pushing the envelope and they don't even know it. I have a concealed carry permit but most times don't carry unless I was going on a road trip or camping out in my back 40. We still have rabid foxes, bears and coyotes in Maine. So a little protection is good in those situations. My point was that the second amendment did not foresee the armament that is readily available today, and if they want to "open carry" on the streets I have no problem if they want to drag around their flintlock. That still is how I feel no matter what the formerwhoeverheis thinks. He is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. They do get shrill though, don't they.

99. shrill is not the word

i don't know if there IS a word...

so would you have any problem with having to register the guns you have? i mean the bigger ones? just a small one time fee.
i just don't understand the selfishness of the whole gun zealot thing- which you obviously aren't.
it's like they need an F-1 racer to go to the grocery store, and don't want to be responsible enough to get a license.
which forces someone like you to look bad to a non-gun person.
thanks!

100. Most of my guns are registered except for the one's that I bought before registration was required..

and the few I bought from private owners. When I was growing up it was not unusual to get a gun for Christmas or your birthday, so I am from a different era. However no one I knew back then would even dream of owning an Ak47 or an AR15 much less a Barrett .50 caliber. This gun along with the large capacity magazine guns like the Bushmaster has me the most concerned. One nut with a Barrett could conceivably take out most of a large city. If that city had large oil, chemical or volatile liquid tanks, it could easily be used to take down an airliner. It has an effective range of about one mile, and penetrating capabilities beyond your wildest imagination, with the right or should I say the wrong ammo in someones hands.

161. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in some people's heads about rights..

As though they didn't exist before the bill of rights.

I guess schools don't teach the Enlightenment these days. No Locke, Rousseau, or even Hobbes.

No, all one has to do is read the preamble to the Bill of Rights to disabuse themselves of that notion:

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? The government. Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government.

The Bill of Rights is not a "the people can-" document; it's a "the government can't" document.

162. no, just in yours

rights are not for objects. you have the right to defend yourself. period. not own any fucking gun you want.
do you have a right to own your refrigerator to defend against food poisoning.
get real, please.
the government can't stop you from owning a gun.
but it can, has before, and is about to AGAIN, tell you what kind of gun you can own.

192. not sore in the least. i have stuffed your BS like 2 dozen times now give up

you jumped into someone's question with a bunch of mumbo jumbo BS

i called you on it thusly:
rights are not for objects. you have the right to defend yourself. period. not own any fucking gun you want.
do you have a right to own your refrigerator to defend against food poisoning.
get real, please.
the government can't stop you from owning a gun.
but it can, has before, and is about to AGAIN, tell you what kind of gun you can own.

deal with it

and go away. you have NO CHANCE

SCALIA wrote this, not me

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

204. what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?

A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

is what you said, that chart is crap.

Funny though, you seem to have missed the part mentioning what arms are protected- those "in common use, for lawful purposes".

you quoted 6 WORDS SO SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!!!

we are discussing whether the right is limited- it is, ask scalia

SCALIA wrote this, not me- my bold

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story

207. In common use -- selling like hotcakes.. for lawful purposes -- not used in crime very much.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

*Every* right is limited. *No* right is unlimited.

You continue to flog that straw man all you like. You seem to be under the mistaken idea that if a right is limited in any way, that any restriction whatsoever is a-ok. Do time / place / manner restrictions on speech (held to be constitutional) mean that *any* restriction on speech is peachy-keen? Of course not, silly.

Derp.

Both Miller and Heller assert that the "arms" protected by the second amendment are those that are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

I demonstrated that "assault weapons" are both "in common use" and "for lawful purposes".

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story

Lol, I wasn't born with a printing press, either. Nor a ballot. I still have the right to speak and vote.

205. you are the data, i claim you a fool!

you quoted 6 WORDS SO SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!!!

we are discussing whether the right is limited- it is, ask scalia

SCALIA wrote this, not me- my bold

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story

208. My goodness, maybe you should switch to decaf. n/t

218. You found one of the rabid NRA-ers here on DU

That guy LOVES to declare victory. It's a key thing. I've never seen any posts from him on any theme other than "guns are like gold-plated chocolate-covered unicorns". He loves to move goal posts, he loves to use red herrings, among many other rhetorical falsehoods.

Mainly he is here to waste the time of Liberals. His anger & emotion and doggedness in pursuing his agenda of defending his Precious is amazing, and must be a paid pursuit, if you know what I mean.

8. but now the family all has the same coat

31. I presume that "black and shiny" is a gun.

I personally haven't read the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, it did occur to me
that perhaps the original intention of the phrase "right to bear arms" might have meant the right to carry the family flag publicly. (I doubt that such was the case.)

I believe that the fanatical fixation surrounding the gun culture has to do the the primitive instincts of all animals to acquire as much power and control as possible. That would be
a primary survival emotion. Firearms, to a certain extent, represent the simplest and most effective means of achieving instant ascendancy. Everywhere young humans look,they are seeing various representations of people "have the drop" on others by way of gun play.
We have all seen fictional depictions of thousands of deaths by gun.

For the young Americans, they are often unable to separate the conditions of fantasy shooting and real shooting. Some years ago, a news reporter interviewed ten young men on death row, asking each of them the same question,"what were you thinking during the moments you were shooting your victims?" They all gave very similar answers along the lines of "it was like a movie", "as though I was an actor", or "It didn't seem real."

All of those responses that clearly showed the disconnect between fantasy shooting and real shooting.

16. I have no idea what you are even talking about. His quote is not cherry picked in any way.

Take a look at an article he wrote for Parade magazine in 1990, and then try and convince me there is any individual "right to bear arms" other than the Roberts court making up shit out of whole cloth:

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

18. Non-responsive to my questions.

If Burger was on sound legal reasoning with this "quote" what about the rest of his decisions? Do you agree with them or not? Was he only a great legal mind only when it comes to the 2nd amendment? Why are you trying to sidestep these questions?

But Burger is right about one thing. The second amendment was about the concern of an oppressive federal government. They never dreamed that the issue of individual possession of arms would ever be an issue. They took it as an assumption individuals would have arms.

478 U.S. 186
Bowers v. Hardwick
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-140 Argued: March 31, 1986 --- Decided: June 30, 1986

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that, in constitutional terms, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.

As the Court notes, ante at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

This in no wise different than the gun prohibitionists' newfound love for Michael Bloomberg
and secret government watch lists.

86. "george bush the 1st cut up is nra card, too. you should, too." Wow, you really *are* new here...

Question for DUers: Do you hate the NRA so much you'll ally with Michael Bloomberg?

I'll state right off the bat that I'm not thrilled with the NRA personally, because I'm about 90% sure that despite their proclaimed non-partisan stance, they are in fact a right-wing political movement with a bitchin gun club, like I stated here:

80. correct

11. From your link...

Ironically, the NRA did everything it could to stop Heller from reaching the Court. Afraid of a negative result, the organization urged that the case not be filed, tried to take it over when it was, and attempted to render it moot through legislation. All its efforts failed. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the NRA’s most consistent nemesis, was also worried, and tried unsuccessfully to dissuade the District of Columbia from appealing the Heller case to the Supreme Court.

These two lobbying organizations found themselves together in the same political bed didn't they? What common interest landed them there, spooning between the sheets? They both make good money off people's feelings about guns. They both have the same business model, which is to sell people's feelings back to them. And like any business, they don't want anybody messing with their revenue stream. It's a very conservative position to take, most passionately embraced by the wealthiest among us.

Gun ownership is, like everything else in the human experience, governed by both real world physics and emotional need. The "fraud" that has been perpetrated on both sides of the debate feeds on the emotional responses to guns. It is the same fraud that gave us nine thousand pound cars, McMansions and Snookie.

15. You admire Chief Justice Burger?

think he was a reasonable person whose judgement you agree with?

What about this:

Burger was opposed to gay rights as he wrote a famous concurring opinion in the Court's 1986 decision upholding a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (Bowers v. Hardwick), in which Burger purported to marshal historical evidence that laws criminalizing homosexuality were of ancient vintage. Chief Justice Burger pointed out that the famous legal author William Blackstone wrote that sodomy was a "'crime against nature'... of 'deeper malignity than rape', a heinous act 'the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature' and 'a crime not fit to be named'"

or this:

Abortion is a hotly contested moral and political issue. Such issues, in our society, are to be resolved by the will of the people, either as expressed through legislation or through the general principles they have already incorporated into the Constitution they have adopted. Roe v. Wade implies that the peoplehave already resolved the debate by weaving into the Constitution the values and principles that answer the issue. As I have argued, I believe it is clear that the people have never -- not in 1787, 1791, 1868, or at any time since -- done any such thing. I would return the issue to the people by overruling Roe v. Wade.

22. Like these?

In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) the Burger Court issued another unanimous ruling against the Nixon Administration's desire to invalidate the need for a search warrant and the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance."

30. Yes, but if your argument is an "appeal to authority" argument

(ie. this guy is an expert so he MUST be right) then it's best not to pick someone with whom you have serious disagreements. By putting the person up as an authority, you would be forced to defend ALL the person's opinions or turn around and dismiss the person as an expert (or close your eyes, cover your ears, and say that the person is an expert only when you agree with their opinion).

63. K&R

65. Can we have a little honesty here?

Initially, there is a reference to Burger. Then a quote (which is not supported by any source other than an author writing a column for the NY Times). Then two words which appear to be meaningless. And then a quote.

Burger did not say "Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia.

The only person who said that is the author of the column. He wrote an anti-gun column. If he could have attributed that statement to former Chief Justice Burger, he would have done so.

Instead, the author wrote a statement, which is quoted in the OP, as indicating that Burger was in agreement with that view.

Did Burger even say, if at all,

"the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

The author of the column claims that Burger said that. If true, where's the source?

In the Heller case, if the District of Columbia had a quote from Burger claiming that the individual-right argument was based upon a fraud, did the Dist of Columbia use it? Somehow, that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Where in the opinion, if any place, can that be found?

69. certainly!

it isn't the Times, look at the link. its says books. new york review of books.

the quote is from paragraph #7 from that link, i'm sure you didn't bother reading it:
Until that time, legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia. (The amendment provides, somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously, that “a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican, said that the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Yet just seventeen years later, in Heller, five justices proclaimed that the Framers had intended to protect an individual right to bear arms.

those 2 meaningless words are NOT and BURGER, meaning it is not Burger, it is from the link below it.

that was followed by 3 questions, the first two serious, and the next humorous.

The author of the column claims that Burger said that. If true, where's the source?

see paragraph #7

In contrast, the actual reasoning of the Supreme Court can actually be found in the Heller opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdfIn the Heller case, if the District of Columbia had a quote from Burger claiming that the individual-right argument was based upon a fraud, did the Dist of Columbia use it? Somehow, that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Where in the opinion, if any place, can that be found?

if you expect me to believe you read past the 1st page (of 157 pages), show me.
i've never really heard a lawyer say in court "well, so and so said something in an interview"- that would be a bad lawyer, and they don't usually hang out in the SC.

burger gave his opinion on the nra to a reporter. i agree with him.

did you catch this part from your link? it's in the middle somewhere:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

74. TWO sources enough?

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour."

73. Oh, the same Burger who ruled that sodomy laws were constitutional?

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger cited the "ancient roots" of prohibitions against homosexual sex, quoting William Blackstone's description of homosexual sex as an "infamous crime against nature", worse than rape, and "a crime not fit to be named." Burger concluded: "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching

92. Unintentional quote of the night..

i'm not really interested in your thoughts on guns, unless you agree with me

That's DUzy-worthy material, right there.

i feel it is a PRIVILEGE. not a RIGHT

It is a right.. it pre-dates the constitution..

See US v Cruikshank (1876),

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."

(Of course that bit about congress changed with the fourteenth amendment. Speaking of the 14'th..

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Senator James Nye of Nevada, February 28, 1866 (the senate debate on the 14th amendment, talking about the recently freed slaves..

95. it was intentional! i don't care what you think about guns your info is 125 years old

2008- SCALIA Heller decision

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

so what were you saying about your guns again? sounds like a privilege to me...

Stevens chided Congress for failing to tighten gun laws after the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, the Washington Examiner and Reuters report. "The fact that Congress doesn't address it is, I think, mind-boggling," he said in the speech broadcast by C-SPAN.

104. No right is unlimited. Not the first, the second, the fourth, the fifth..

So because I can't stand in the middle of a suburban street in the middle of the night, with a bullhorn talking about the dangers of trans-fats, you consider the freedom of the press to be a privilege?

If you think that a right having restrictions makes it a privilege, you don't understand the terms.

106. thanks for agreeing

please explain what yelling into a bullhorn has to do with printing presses?

so you agree with TWO supreme court judges, your right to carry a gun is limited.

privilege

priv·i·lege
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

116. You're babbling.

In a majority of states, there is no license, or asking permission of the state to own a firearm.

Alabama - no
Alaska- no
Arizona - no
Arkansas - no
California - no (no licensing per owner, but handguns require a 'safety certificate')
Colorado - no
Connecticut - license for handguns only
Delaware - no
Florida - no
Georgia - no

In the following states, a resident may carry concealed handguns with a license

In two states in the first ten, no license is required to carry a handgun concealed
Alaska
Arizona

The following states have open carry of long guns
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
Georgia

In none of these states may you carry 'any kind of gun you want anywhere'. All have restrictions on where they may be carried- from schools, banks, municipal buildings, hospitals, etc etc (varies by state.)

117. so far you got right/privilege AND car/gun AND license/permit WRONG! look here!

X_Digger (12,412 posts)
111. Generally, one has to be licensed to carry outside one's home..

wiki:
A firearms licence (also known as a gun licence) is a licence or permit issued by some governments (typically by the police) of a country (or state or municipality thereof), that allows the licensee to buy, own, possess, and use firearms, often subject to a number of conditions or restrictions, especially with regards to storage requirements or the completion of a firearms safety course, as well as background checks, etc. Firearms licences are not required in all jurisdictions.

yes i can see it says permit there, but you are DEAD WRONG. you need a PERMIT to carry outside your home IN ALL STATES.
you need a license to OWN the gun (sometimes), and a PERMIT to take it out of your house.

129. quote this

in 1967-
Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

149. no, the 2ND AMENDMENT STOP WASTING MY TIME!

76. I agree with Chief Justice Burger. I always

read the 2nd amendment as a state's right and not an individual right. The Ku Klux Klan was an armed militia of sorts and that was definitely considered a domestic terrorist hate group subject to criminal sanctions. Some of today's individual gun rights proponents remind me of a 21st century version of the KKK. I could be totally wrong but that's what they remind me of.

102. Is there any right that isn't limited by the extent to which it damages the rights of others?

I don't see gun advocates recognizing that principle; it's as though there is no possibility of any kind of situation in which unlimited gun-ownership will ever affect the rights of others to "the security of a free State" that's part of their holy 2nd Amendment. Accumulating assault weapons will never affect anyone??? There are no scenarios EVER in which those weapons could affect others not directly involved in their use? or require the use of public resources that would otherwise not be necessary were ownership of assault weapons not so un-controlled?

It seems odd to me that people apparently can't think of various things that could happen, things that would affect people who had no part in choosing to own things like assault weapons, it seems so odd that they can't hypothesize like that, especially when you hear such heart felt enthusiasm for expressions such as "from my cold dead hands" and other affirmations of what gun owners will do to protect their unlimited "rights" to gun ownership. I'm mean, do they mean it or not? It's kind of scarey that they can think and talk and act that way - AND - not recognize the potential for situations that will hurt other people and cost public resource dollars due to assault weapons and result in over-all oppression of people who chose no part of their weapons to begin with.

119. Alas, poor Burger put his money on the wrong horse. The States Rights interpretation lost big.

Burger begins with a straw man argument in which someone is supposedly asserting an unfettered right to possess any type of weapon.

While he admits there is a right to keep and bear arms for hunting, and a right to have guns for home defense, Burger says the second amendment is concerned with protecting states rights to maintain militias. This was the theory later espoused by the Ninth Circuit in Hickman, and even later rejected by that same circuit in Silveira when the weight of academic opinion, and the plain text of the second amendment, made the States' Rights theory untenable. At the Supreme Court, the dissenters in Heller rejected Hickman and Silveira, and instead seized upon the narrow individual right interpretation that had been flatly rejected in Siilveira.

The lengths that deniers of an individual right to keep and bear arms have gone is farcical, but the apparent inability of the the deniers to remember thier last argument is even more so.

Assuming that their concern is only for reasonable restrictions. the deniers of the individual right to keep and bear arms have been their own worst enemy. But given the games played by the deniers, it is may be reasonable to assume that they have much more in mind than reasonable restrictions and are in fact have been attempting to set the stage for banning ownership of a wide assortment of guns -not merely saturday night specials and machine guns.

139. maybe being shot gives you a more vivid look at why guns are bad?

130. "weight of academic opinion"

Richard Posner is arguably the best legal mind of our time and has written extensively about how the individual right interpretation is complete shit. He also tears Scalia a new asshole over his "plain text" interpretation of the 2A, using Scalia's own legal theory.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/defense-looseness#

I understand that those who cheer for the proliferation of guns are still celebrating their big win with Scalia, but do keep in mind that those who sided with Scalia are the most right wing members of the court while those on the other side were the most progressive. Also keep in mind that "plain text" legal interpretations are almost exclusively limited to right wing judges and even the most wingnutty ones at that. Scalia and Thomas are the only members of the current SCOTUS that subscribe to that methodology.

134. Just sayin that Posner lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Posner's "original purpose" is little different than Bork's "original intent". Once they have convinced themselves of the original purpose or original intent (take your pick), then facts such as state court decisions and contemporary writings by authoritative commentators mean nothing and are simply swept aside. Even the plain text can be swept aside once one truly understands the original purpose, it is almost magical.

The government's case was a loser even under the theory of the right to keep and bear arms espoused in Aymette v. Tenn. There the right was said to be an unqualified right of every citizen to keep arms suitable for use in warfare , and though the right to bear them in defense of their political rights could be regulated for public safety reasons, the state could not ban altogether the open carry of arms. The government's case of course also loses under more broadly construed state court interpretations, including later Tennessee supreme court ruling which upheld a right to keep and use arms for home defense, and other state cases which read the RKBA far more broadly than Aymette.

Keep in mind the four "most progressive" members of the court gave us Raich and more recently the latest crop of progressives said that Congress has the power to compel commerce (wrap you head around that -Congress can supposedly compel a person to grow wheat and sell it to the AAA Board) That is the farthest thing from progress I can think of. Thomas's dissent in Raich ought to have been written by a progressive majority but the sometimes progressives had other ideas that day.

137. Who stacked the courts in the 1800s?

Ignoring that such legal decisions exist does not change the fact of their existence.

Did the RW gun nuts send their minions back in time to infiltrate the state ratifying conventions and have them propose separate bill of rights provisions for increasing state control over the militia and for protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms? Did the RW gun nuts stack the courts in the 1800s?

I am far more concerned with what is commonly found on progressive sites regarding cases such as Kelo, Raich, NFIB, and Heller. The opinions in those 4 cases of the sometimes progressives members of the supreme court could easily have been written by @1930s fascists.

150. YOU lost in the supreme court, Mr. Not-so-Smartypants!

do you want to argue with the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT?!?

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me (Heller)

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

171. Can you read? None of what you have cut and pasted repeatedly

provides any evidence that the gun lobby has asserted that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Yes, you can cut and paste, but can you read? Your quote from Wayne Lapierre does not even address the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment. you may as well have posted the lyrics to catch scratch fever.

174. Physician heal thyself.

You should consider taking your own advice.

Since despite several tries, you haven't been able to locate any evidence to show that the gun lobby actually said that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires", maybe you should reconsider your OP.

176. take two minutes to read this, and don't come back. ever.

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me. in 2008. deal with it.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

179. You remembered again! While you're lucid, can you tell

me how Scalia's view, which was hailed by the gun lobby as a great victory, supports the notion that the gun lobby asserts that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

180. yep

it doesn't. that is his view.

you are only hailing the part(not posted), where for the first time in history, he actually said you had the right to own a gun.

you and you ilk have not read the part i posted, which is why you all boo-hoo every time someone mentions scary scary gun laws, kind of like when you only PUT HALF OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT on your HEADQUARTERS

get it? if you don't, you are being fed BS by a guy who makes $1 million a year to feed you
i think he forgot to check the dictionary, too, and uses freedom as a form of mind control. ironic, huh?

straight from the mouth of some lame satan-wannabe:
LePew-
That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment free-duh m. Period.

freedom
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.

183. "it doesn't. that is his view." Wow, I did catch you in a momoment of clarity, so hopefully

you can now find that quote from the gun lobby sayiing that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

It was your side of the argument all along that aimed for an absolutist reading of the second amendment -one in which there was either no individual right at all protected or one that is so narrow as to be meaningless. Posner and the jackasses on the 9th circuit who gave us Hickman and Silveira, as well as the dissenters in Heller and MacDonald, did far more to poison the well than anyone on the individual rights side.

Why do you continue to repeat Burger's straw man, knowing full well it is crap?

184. go away, you have lost 3 times already shut up you aren't even reading this you robot later dud

straight from the mouth of some lame satan-wannabe:
LePew-
That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment free-duh m. Period.

freedom
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.4.
political or national independence.

185. What a pity the moment has passed, your thinking is once again clouded by your hatred of the NRA

Yesterday you said you could post 100 quotes in 10 minutes to support the claim that the gun lobby asserts that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Well you have posted many quotes, but none of them coming close to demonstrating that claim.

You know what your are saying is false, yet you continue to say it -what does that make you?

188. Still no luck, eh? Guess you'll be needing more than 10 minutes afterall ...

I can wait, but won't really be expecting any rational response from you. Let me help with your search by asking a simple question:

Are you just posting random quotes from the NRA that upset you, or are actully looking for a quote to support the notion that the gun lobby asserts that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

219. Because you are unable to back your claims, foot stomping and foolishness are all you can offer. n/t

138. The OP is a straw man argument, itself knowingly propped up by the straw man left to us by Burger.

It is straw men all the way down.

Farminator, you post #95 shows you are well aware that no one of any prominence, not even the hated Scalia, is making the case that the second amendment "was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires". So why do you continue to advance this straw man?

Burger's original Straw Man:
"The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
(my emphasis)

Surely Burger was well aware that the gun lobby was not arguing for an interpretation of the second amendment in which every citizen is guaranteed an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. Legal restrictions on the place and mode of carry and the type of firearms that were protected under the right to keep and bear arms were numerous and well known and accepted for over 150 years when Burger made that disingenuous statement. The gun lobby woke up when the gun grabbers began making claims that there was no individual right whatever under the second amendment ( a claim made in Hickman and later in Silveira, both in the 9th circuit).

141. you become a straw man as soon as you type those words, and the gun lobby is sound asleep

Surely Burger was well aware that the gun lobby was not arguing for an interpretation of the second amendment in which every citizen is guaranteed an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

i could find 100 quotes in 10 minutes to prove you wrong. from meet the press interview with Gregory

WAYNE LAPIERRE:
If it’s crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our school to protect our children, then call me crazy. I’ll tell you what the American people– I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it. It’s the one thing that would keep people safe.
And the N.R.A. is going to try to do that. We’re going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school. And we’re going to work with Asa Hutchinson, who has agreed to work with us to put together a voluntary program, drawing on retired military, drawing on retired police, drawing on former Secret Service, and all these people that can actually go in and make our kids safe. That’s the one thing, the one thing that we can do–
(OVERTALK)
DAVID GREGORY:
The one and only thing?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
It’s a–
DAVID GREGORY:
You don’t think guns should be part of the conversation?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
I think that is the one thing that we can do immediately that will immediately make our children safe.
DAVID GREGORY:
Is it the only thing?
WAYNE LAPIERRE:
Gun control, you could ban all Dianne Feinstein’s, you could do whatever she wants to do with magazines, it’s not going to make any kid safer. We’ve got to get to the real problems, the real causes. And that’s what the N.R.A. is trying to do.
And I think, I’ll tell you this, I have people all over the country calling me saying, “Wayne, I went to bed safer last night because I have a firearm. Don’t let the media try to make this a gun issue.”

143. What sorcery is this?

Conjuring straw men, putting the gun lobby to sleep, and invoking original purpose to magically wish away the plain text of the second amendment is strong medicine indeed!

Maybe you could find 100 quotes in 10 minutes to show that the gun lobby interprets the second amendment as guaranteing every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires, but I will settle for just one.

Though given your track record here, I will not hold my breath waiting for a response that makes any sense.

144. the good kind.

WAYNE LAPIERRE:
Gun control, you could ban all Dianne Feinstein’s, you could do whatever she wants to do with magazines, it’s not going to make any kid safer. We’ve got to get to the real problems, the real causes. And that’s what the N.R.A. is trying to do.

you conjured up straw men. i called your BS. i am the tin man who has found a heart
you are the straw man still looking for...

146. The lame kind is more like it. It has been quite a bit longer than 10 minutes, and still no

luck in your pitiful search for a quote from Wayne Lapierre or anyone else from the so -called gun lobby in which they assert that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Maybe you can contact the Wizard (AKA your pal Posner) for a clue where to locate one.

151. OIC, so when you are not posting nonsense on the internet, you are working...

good.

But before you get back to work, perhaps you could take a pause from posting nonsense, and post a quote from the gun lobby in which they assert that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires".

Surely you can do better than a quote from Ted (Cat scratch fever) Nugent that falls way short of the mark needed to support Burger's claim.

166. How does any of those quotes support the notion that the gun lobby

has asserted that the second amendment was "intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires"?

You probably could post 100 quotes in 10 minutes -if one doesn't count repeats, but you can't post even one in 10 hours that supports your position. Maybe you should come back on your day off, I am sure you just too distracted to focus.

172. are a-holes? well, board member the Nuge said so. period.

focus on this:
i don't care what you are saying you are wasting my time. go soak your head in gun oil.

"You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993

your BOSS is a JERK- last time i checked freedom was unlimited

Monsieur LePew
Mr. President, thank you for this brief opportunity to address this conference. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 21 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world, with four million members who represent 100 million law-abiding Americans who own firearms.

On behalf of those 100 million American gun owners, I am here to announce NRA’s strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens’ right to self-defense.

No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us.

We will not stand idly by while international organizations, whether state-based or stateless, attempt to undermine the fundamental liberties that our men and women in uniform have fought so bravely to preserve – and on which our entire American system of government is based.

For six years, the NRA has closely monitored this effort for an Arms Trade Treaty.

We have watched with increasing concern and, one year ago, I delivered to the Preparatory Committee our objections to including civilian arms in the ATT. I said then … and I will repeat now … that the only way to address NRA’s objections is to simply and completely remove civilian firearms from the scope of the treaty.

That is the only solution. On that there will be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.

159. Clearly. N/T

152. The American Revolution Is A Living Process.

Much of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is "awkward and ambiguous", and any credible scholar on the subject will attest that the framers were compelled to make it so, simply to get even that minimal wording and clarity passed by the necessary majority, knowing that future generations would have a chance to expound and clarifies the issues in the light of experience, expedience and necessity, with less pressure pending than the ratification of the entire Constitution or Bill of Rights. Let us not forget, the country was again under siege, then by the corporate forces against the People, Americans, ( aka "Shay's Rebellion ) during the framing and ratification process of the Constitution. There were those framers who knew that the general populace would always need to defend themselves from those who would always seek to dominate, oppress and exploit them, at odds with those framers who aspired to a new aristocracy of the powerful moneyed lording it over all others during the framing process. It required careful maneuvering to get the minimal protections and guarantees for all Americans out of that process in light of the fear of the "People" that Shay's Rebellion sent through those who were intent on exploiting and dominating the "People." It's up to each generation to extract the benefits and protections from the legacy that our Constitution affords, because the American Revolution is a living process, not a historical conclusion.

178. you must really like this thread, thanks for all the input

189. He's right. I think most people would

figure that out rather quickly after reading the actual text.

The problem is, the fraud occurred so long ago that it seems almost impossible to correct the record now. The first step is shifting the consciousness of Americans. That would involve getting rid of hate tv & radio and setting standards for news networks. Not just regarding the truth of what they broadcast, but also making sure they cover important topics that are not covered now. I'm convinced that if people were aware of certain things, they'd be open to change.

191. the fraud is only 35 years old, really...

about the 40th paragraph- i'm gonna post the ones right before that as a thread

Rich’s plan sparked outrage among the new breed of staunch, hard-line gun-rights advocates. The dissidents were led by a bald, blue-eyed bulldog of a man named Harlon Carter, who ran the NRA’s recently formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In May 1977, Carter and his allies staged a coup at the annual membership meeting. Elected the new executive vice president, Carter would transform the NRA into a lobbying powerhouse committed to a more aggressive view of what the Second Amendment promises to citizens.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true

214. where, exactly? and why should i even try to be polite?

216. ....

it has nothing to do with being polite, its backing assertions with facts and making compelling arguments... but I am sure this is wasted on you.. continue on, but at least stop bumping this thread to the top beating your chest over faux victories by your own self-congratulatory posts.... bye